secrets_scope

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement 'Requires secrets.write,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible, what happens if the secret does not exist, or how the scope is applied). The example clarifies allowedTools but leaves behavioral details unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example and a permission note. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case, includes a permission requirement, and provides an illustrative example. It does not explain return values, but that is not critical for a configuration/mutation tool, and the sibling context plus schema fill most gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the meaning of allowedTools with an example, but this is already present in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Restrict which tools can use a secret.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like secrets_store, secrets_delete, and secrets_inject by focusing on access scoping, reinforced with a concrete example (API key scoped to http.post).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating the action and giving an example use case, which implies when to use it. It also notes the required permission 'Requires secrets.write.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, though the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.